1 Format

When you submit, you do not have to use the formatting of Systems, Signs, and Actions. However, in case your paper is accepted, you will receive a styleguide and be asked to edit your paper according to this guide.

Do not place author information on the first page of the paper since we do blind-reviewing. Instead, add a front page with the following information:

Names, titles, affiliations and emails of all authors.

The genre of you paper: short position statement, commentary paper (commenting on other papers in the journal), normal journal paper (15-20 pages), longer contribution (30-40 pages).

Correspondence information: name, address, email, and telephone of one author to which correspondence concerning the paper should be addressed.

2 Evaluation

Your paper will be evaluated according to the editorial policy plus normal scientific criteria.

2.1 Editorial policy

The journal is defined by a particular perspective: (1) action, communication, representation, and interpretation mediated by (2) information technology in (3) work organizations. You may place the emphasis on any of the three components, as long as the others are treated as important parts of the context. For example, technical papers are welcome as long as technology is viewed as media for action and communication. The journal aims at combined theoretical and empirical developments. Theoretical/conceptual papers should contain some practical or empirical illustrations. Papers with emphasis on empirical research must contain theoretical arguments.

The journal accepts four kinds of contributions: short position statements, commentary papers (commenting on other papers in the journal), normal journal papers (15-20 pages), and longer contributions (30-40 pages).

2.2 Normal scientific criteria

We evaluate papers according to the following standard criteria:

Mastery of language.

Style and presentation of thesis and arguments

Coherence of arguments.

Importance and originality of thesis.

Backing of thesis: empirical evidence and/or theoretical arguments.

Amount of references and discussion of previous work.

Quality of illustrations.

3 Results of the evaluation

The purpose of the journal is to help provide good papers, not to evaluate researchers. Therefore there are only three options in the final conclusion.

Accept: The paper can be accepted as it is.

Develop: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, but it is worthwhile starting an editorial process to improve the paper.

Reject: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, and it is not worthwhile starting an editorial process.

If the paper is accepted, you may receive suggestions for improvement from the reviewers. You can use them, but is not obligated to do so.

If the paper is classified as “develop” you are invited to enter into an improvement process together with one of the chief editors and a member of the editorial board.

If the paper is rejected you will receive an explanation for this evaluation, and possibly suggestions for improvements.